Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Independent Evolution of Eyes

Evolution has to be true, and yet it is not well supported scientifically. If you ask how evolution occurred, you will be told there are various theories grappling with the problem. But if you ask if evolution occurred, you will be told that, without a doubt, it is an unequivocal fact. Evolutionists have metaphysical certainty about the truth of evolution, in spite of the empirical evidence. This is a consistent theme in the evolution genre. Here, for example, is the opening paragraph in a journal paper from last year on the evolution of vision:

The evolution of the eye has focused research interest ever since Darwin identified the eye with its ‘‘inimitable contrivances’’ as a vexing problem for evolutionary theory (1859). Gradual evolution seemed implausible because ‘‘intermediate’’ forms of the eye seemed unlikely to be adaptive and selectable. Since Darwin’s original challenge, however, a surprisingly large number of cases of independent evolution of image-forming eyes have been documented.

Translation: Contrary to evolutionary expectations, biology presents us with a wide variety of vision systems. They are too different to have evolved from a common ancestor. The evolutionary spin on this surprise is that vision must have independently evolved many times (after all, the fact that vision must have evolved, somehow, is not in question).

Furthermore, various living species with completely functional forms of eye organization are now known, which could be viewed as ‘‘intermediate’’ between a simple photoreceptive patch and the complex image-forming eye seen in cephalopods and most vertebrates.

On the other hand, they could not be viewed as intermediate. It all depends on whether we are following the evidence. In fact, the biochemistry of even simple, non image forming, eyes is profoundly complex.

Although the fact of repeated evolution of image-forming eyes, as well as the capacity for functional intermediates, is thus firmly established, the mechanism of the evolutionary process is still speculative.

Translation: We may have to contrive just-so stories to explain evolution, but we will continue repeating that it is a fact.

93 comments:

Has the evolutionof the eye been traced in the fossil record? Or ddid animals with fully formed eyes just show up suddenly? If the eye evolved so many times indenpently, I woulkd expect at least one example to have been preserved. I'm just asking.

"Eyes are formed via long and complex developmental genetic networks/cascades, which we are only beginning to understand, and of which Pax6/eyeless (the gene in question, in mammals and Drosophila, respectively) merely constitutes one of the initial elements."

IOW the only evidence for the evolution of the vision system is that we have observed varying degrees of complexity in living organisms, from simple light sensitive spots on unicellular organisms to the vision system of more complex metazoans, and we “know” that the first population(s) of living organisms didn’t have either. Therefore the vision system “evolved”.

Isn’t evolutionary “science” great!

I say the above because if Dr Bottaro is correct then we really have no idea whether or not the vision system could have evolved from a population or populations that did not have one.

Though evolutionists pretend that the evolution of such a complex structure as the eye is no big deal, the fact is that they cannot account for the origination of even one protein molecule that is in this irreducibly complex pathway for sight:

Axe Diagram for finding a functional protein domain out of all sequence space:The y-axis can be seen as representing enzyme activity, and the x-axis represents all possible amino acid sequences. Enzymes sit at the peak of their fitness landscapes (Point A). There are extremely high levels of complex and specified information in proteins--informational sequences which point to intelligent design. http://www.evolutionnews.org/axediagram.jpg

"a very rough but conservative result is that if all the sequences that define a particular (protein) structure or fold-set where gathered into an area 1 square meter in area, the next island would be tens of millions of light years away." Kirk Durston

That the "mind" of a individual observer would play such an integral yet not complete "closed system role", in the instantaneous quantum wave collapse of the universe to "3D centrality", gives us clear evidence that our "mind" is a unique entity. A unique entity with a superior quality of existence when compared to the "uncertain 3D particles" of the "material" universe. This is clear evidence for the existence of the "higher dimensional soul" of man that supersedes any "material basis" that the soul/mind has been purported to "emerge" from by materialists.

The Known Universe - Dec. 2009 - very cool video (please note the centrality of the earth in the universe)http://www.youtube.com/v/17jymDn0W6U

of note: The only way to "geometrically" maintain continuous 3D spherical symmetry of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation within the "3D universe", from different points of observation in the universe, is for all the "higher dimensional" quantum waves of the universe to collapse to their "uncertain" 3D particle state, universally and instantaneously, for/to each individual observer in the universe.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_in_physics

Blind Woman Can See During Near Death Experience - Pim Lommel - videohttp://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994599/blind_woman_can_see_during_near_death_experience_pim_lommel_nde/

The Miracle Of Eyesighthttp://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMThmd25mdjRocQ

It is questionable if eyes really "evolved." The same can be said for many other structures. They pop up full blown with no known simpler precursors. This, however, does not mean that evolution did not (past tense) occur. It means that the information for the many sorts of eyes was already present in the eyeless ancestors and was expressed on a predetermined schedule.

The Darwnians are immune to this interpretation, the only one that conforms with the testimony of the fossil record. They insist on gradual intermediate states even as they do not exist. I can't think of a single biological structure that "evolved" according to Darwinian gradualism, not one. Neither can anyone else. Otto Schindewolf said it best and I paraphrase only because I don't have the original handy -

"We might as well stop looking for the misssing links as they never existed... The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg."

It is hard to believe isn't it? Not any longer it isn't!

There is nothing in Darwin's childish fantasy that ever had anything whatsoever to do with its title, absolutely nothing. Get used to it folks as every one of my sources did, sources that the cowardly Darwinian mystics still pretend never existed. The Darwinian hoax is the longest surviving scandal in the history of science. It dwarfs the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics. It survives for one reason only. Congenital atheism has a tangible, undeniable, demonstrated basis. EVERY aspect of the human condition has to some extent been "prescribed" in each human genome. The proof lies in the studies on identical twins reared in drastically different cultural environments. I recommend William Wright's "Born That Way" for the documentation.

AS for "common descent," it is an unwarranted assumption which is not in accord with the testimony of the fossil record. I am not the first to recognize this primary weakness in the Darwinian hoax.

To talk about the "evolution of the eye" is meaningless. It is the evolution of the visual system that should be the focus of attention.

To rephrase the classic question: "What good is an eye spot?" The eye is merely a transducer that converts light energy into chemical and electrical signals. Without the co-evolution of the structures that interpret these signals the eye would be useless. And this addresses only part of what would consitute all the suuporting structures required to make vision possible.

Maybe jadavison is correct when he says that the eye, or rather the vision system, popped into existence with no simple precursors.

To ask the question another way, "What good is a television camera (if that's all there is)?"

I see Zachriel has surfaced here. He is a regular at Elsbrry's "inner sanctum" After The Bar Closes. Do me a favor Zachriel and call attention to your cronies that I am treating them with the utmost contempt here. I'll look for it.

Those interested in this topic should read the free reviews from the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, whose Oct. 09 issue was exactly this.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1531.toc

"However, it is now clear that deep homologies exist between the components of eyes in different phyla. For example, the photoreceptor cells of vertebrates and invertebrates are not as distinct from each other as has sometimes been suggested. Likewise, the opsin photopigments in the photoreceptors of all animal eyes derive from a common ancestral opsin, even though the commonly known animal opsins fall into two distinct groups: rhabdomeric and ciliary. Furthermore, despite the apparent major differences in the structure of photosensitive organs across phyla (for example, compound eyes versus camera-style eyes), the genes that underlie eye development are in most cases quite clearly related."

So although the structures differ, the building blocks are ancestral. On the molecular level, evolution is more apparent then the complex final structure.

If all the examples of various levels of developed eyes appeared in order in the fossil record, the evolutionists would have a much stronger argument, but they don't. You have early organisms with better developed eyes than some later organisms. There is no progression whatsoever. Anyone who actually has the faith to believe that not only did the eye evolve, but the whole vision system simultaneously evolved, is truly a man of great faith.

"The one who made the eye does he not see?"This is so simple and obvious its amazing that Darwinsts are so incapable of understanding even the base teleology invloved.

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning; just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."-CS Lewis

But blind nature does not "know" there is any such thing as light or a need for sight. Only those who see can understand sight.

* A light-sensitive "spot" means nothing at all in the usual evo. jargon - what is it?* What would cause a light-sensitive spot in the 1st place?* A light-sensitive spot, by itself, is useless. And these useless "mutations" lying on the organisms skin, or where ever, would more likely be treated by the "body" and selection, as a tumor more than a fitness advantage!* In the real world light-sensitive spots on skin are diseases* A light-sensitive "spot" is itself a highly complex piece of bio-electric circuitry * The formation of a lens out of the spot is the next supposed step but why and how would this happen while retaining a fitness advantage?* Without a brain and a working, algorithmical, prescribed connection to a brain no possible survival or evo "advantage" could ever be gained by such spots - just like tumors* If no advantage is acheived, the "spots" remain useless & cumbersome structures - i.e. "selection" would eliminate them!* Why not multiple such spots? And so...more useless mass* How exactly would such spots manage to form a functional and useful link with the brain - and that without any goal? * How could the information received by the spots be stored, encoded and decoded to become useful for spatial interpretation?* Visual spatial, color, textural etc. interpretation requires complex math (as any 3D graphics programmer will tell you) - where would this come from?* How could the transfer of information be established between eyes and brain?* How would the brain "know" what to do with said inforamtion? ...

I could go on but the point is that unless Darwinists break the rules and *preconceive* the functional vision system from the very start, which blind nature can't do!, they are lost!The whole "step by mutational step" non-teleological process becomes incredibly faith-based.

To propose sight through a mindless, purposeless process is utterly foolish.Like the whole of atheism itself - a pschological self-defense system of denial of realities.

It also brings the Darwinian scenario to a grinding halt since the only possible way to even think up a gradualistic, evo scenario of the creation of sight, is (here it is again) to *preconceive* eyes from the beginning!

But nature can do no such thing. I personally have never seen any Darwinian scenario attempted without such a preconception being ensconced at the root.

Remove the concept of a targeted, ordered biological neuro/photo function and such an attempt proves to be an exercise in futility with hopelessly cacophonic steps.

Only intelligence is capable producing prescribed, formalized informational structures that are in fact encoded! There simply is no other means because all definitions of prescritive information *intrinsically* imply intelligence. (Especially the encoded kind)

Darweeners NEVER get this or refuse to admit it yet are NEVER capable of demonstrating any other adequate souce.

Again as per Hoyle, you have to accept acute cognitive dissonance and become "in a sense mentally ill" to persist in their belief system.

Hitch says:And these useless "mutations" lying on the organisms skin, or where ever, would more likely be treated by the "body" and selection, as a tumor...light-sensitive spots on skin are diseases...Without a brain and a working, algorithmical, prescribed connection to a brain no possible survival or evo "advantage" could ever be gained by such spots - just like tumors...

So, you would have us believe that light sensitive patches / eyespots developed initially in multicellular organisms.

Sadly for your thesis, eyespots exist in single-celled life, as the basis of phototaxis. This is an enormous advantage for the bearers of these eyespots. This renders most of your points invalid.

As light excites certain proteins (electrically), it is not necessarily sp shocking that this has been exploited in pathways from photosynthesis to sight/light sensitivity. All that is needed is a basic response to the change in protein. Complex pathways could have evolved over time to improve this.

It also brings the Darwinian scenario to a grinding halt since the only possible way to even think up a gradualistic, evo scenario of the creation of sight, is (here it is again) to *preconceive* eyes from the beginning!

That is simply incorrect. Again, eyespots, providing a simple and instantaneous phototaxic response, seem most probable as a starting point for eyes and vision.

Your "translations" are pretty universally wrong and self serving. Creationists have long claimed "the eye is so complex that it must be designed". That real "translation" of the scientific evidence you allude to is "no only can we imagine how a complex eye evolved, not only are transitional fossils available, but because vision is so valuable to the organism, it has evolved independently in several lines so that TODAY, intermediate simple eye forms exist in living creatures". Your implication that this somehow undermine evolution is wrong and frankly stupid. That fact that vision has independently evolved in different creatures does NOT mean it has not evolved from simply to complex, which it certainly has in vertebrates and for which we have a VAST quantity of transitional fossils.

Stop trying to twist the words of people smarter and better educated than you to fit your twisted bronze age magic, and go get an actual education.

It isn't just the eye that is without simpler antecedents. I challenge anyone to name any other structure, intracelular or extracellular, that became "gradually transformed," the sine qua non of the Darwinian fantasy.

nothingHonest: "Your "translations" are pretty universally wrong and self serving. Creationists have long claimed "the eye is so complex that it must be designed". That real "translation" of the scientific evidence you allude to is "no only can we imagine how a complex eye evolved, not only are transitional fossils available, but because vision is so valuable to the organism, it has evolved independently in several lines so that TODAY, intermediate simple eye forms exist in living creatures". Your implication that this somehow undermine evolution is wrong and frankly stupid. That fact that vision has independently evolved in different creatures does NOT mean it has not evolved from simply to complex, which it certainly has in vertebrates and for which we have a VAST quantity of transitional fossils.

Stop trying to twist the words of people smarter and better educated than you to fit your twisted bronze age magic, and go get an actual education."

(*) Apparently, “Darwinists” can’t wrap their heads around the simple truth that when what you’re trying to protect from critical evaluation is inherently ridiculous it’s generally a good idea to refrain from ridicule.

(**) Isn’t it just a hoot that “Darwinists” imagine that some pseudo-scientific 19th century mysterianism (coupled to shoddy, and intellectually dishonest, metaphysics) simply *must* be intellectually compelling in the 21st century?

There are no more gradual transitions for the mammalian inner ear than for the eye. As for the mammalian eye, there are fundamentally different mechanisms to achieve focus within the Mammalian Class. Horses, for example, use an entirely different means than we Primates do to achieve focus, means for which transformations are unthinkable.

You are embarrassing yourself, but if you insist, carry on. Better yet, publish your views in a refereed journal.

JADavison: "There are no more gradual transitions for the mammalian inner ear than for the eye."

Now, now, now! Where's your imagination? Where’s your credulity!

Surely we've all seen the delightful animations of reptilian jaws transforming into mammalian jaws-and-inner-ears. And, since the animated animal had no problem getting his daily bread, why would anyone imagine that umpteen thousand generations of proto-mammals with non-working jaws should have any difficulties getting theirs?

"umpteen thousand generations of proto-mammals with non-working jaws should have any difficulties getting theirs?"

Why would one presume intermediate jaws would be non-functional? I guess it is a lot easier to critique evolution when you present a ridiculous version of it, where functional intermediates are fiated not to be....

abimer said... "Hitch says: ... So, you would have us believe that light sensitive patches / eyespots developed initially in multicellular organisms....Complex pathways could have evolved over time to improve this."

Sorry but you utterly and rather lamely missed the entire point as well as its implications.

Fact: There is NO documented evidence for the evolution of one type of eye into a different type of eye in any creature

Fact: Even a simple light sensitive spot is extremely complicated, involving a huge number of specialized proteins and protein systems.I.e. many different proteins and systems would have to evolve *simultaneously*, because without them all there at once, "vision" would not occur.

Fact: You started with *useful* light sensitivity already in place! Which of course means that, like with all Darwinian scenarios, you cheated!

Light sensitivity is useful -when you know what light means- it means nothing otherwise. i.e. no single celled organism simply "developed" light sensitivity for no reason then "found" one. It is useless by itself, as stated.

You've started with a pre-knowledge about the uses of light and stumbled on from there into the most infantile "it just evolved into complex mammalian eyes from then on" style argument with the obligatory "over time" added with no regards whatsoever to how the 1000's of evolutionary steps required to bring about a full color vision system occurred!

Standard Darwinian negligeance.Always leaping over vast generations of time wherein 10's of 1000's of assumed mutations + selection + impossible luck, are working hard to "make it more fit"

You've also ignored the fact that light sensistivity generally starts as a disadvantage as I pointed out.In humans light sensitive patches of skin are a disease and only cause pain.

Using your single-cell examples, explain how the organisms involved "know" what to do with the light generated reaction.You cannot -it will be just more just-so stories.

You add, "That is simply incorrect. Again, eyespots, providing a simple and instantaneous phototaxic response, seem most probable as a starting point for eyes and vision."

Fact: There is nothing simple about it.

Again, how did the eyespot itself get there? Then, how did it become useable?Why, in Euglena, is it situated right at the flagellar base? Right where it just happens to provide function for useful motility?

In Euglena a cup-shaped mass of pigment rods shields a sensitive area of the flagellar base from light coming from the direction of the opposite end of the organism. So how did THAT happen too?

Of course you've conveniently left out the fact that all these singular things, eyespots, pigment rods etc., function together with all the other things and all for a clear purpose!So pigment rod shields, eyespots and flagellum just happened to arise simultaneously huh? Good luck on that.

Is there no end to Darwinian circular reasoning & presumptions?

You *assume* that an electro-chemical effect in a single celled organism -for which you have no explanation- became a source for useful function to the organism and then just kept on going to mind-boggling complex color vision.- "just add water" comes to mind.

The rest is the usual Darwinian bantha dung of "from then on, over time it may have, might have, probably" ... turned itself into a frog which eventually became a man. Frog to princess -fairy tale style!!

Don't let the hard facts stop you though, as Darwin's brother stated, "...if the facts won’t fit in, why so much the worse for the facts..."

Robert said, "Why would one presume intermediate jaws would be non-functional? I guess it is a lot easier to critique evolution when you present a ridiculous version of it, where functional intermediates are fiated not to be...!"

Bad news for you Rob!

Intermidiates are impossible to prove.

More bad news, the very idea of intermediates presumes that Darwinian theory is true and = begging the question.

More bad news: in Darwinism EVERYTHING is intermediate. So, how can one possibly falsify such a hypothesis?!

Even more bad news: no fossil comes with a pedigree announcing what predecessors it "may have evolved from" and no list of progeny that may evolve from it.

The only thing we know for sure, empirically speaking, is that like produces like and occasionally deformities that either don't survive or cant reproduce.

"(iii) Photopigments (the order of the origin of (i)–(iii) is not important). Photopigments often came from bacterial food via horizontal gene transfer or from the chloroplast via endosymbiotic gene transfer (animal rhodopsins are one exception). The first function of these photopigments could have been the regulation of a photophobic response, and not phototaxis. This is easier to evolve and only requires the integration of photoreceptor signalling into ciliary signalling to turn off ciliary beating. Such photophobic behaviour still coexists in many phototactic organisms and functions independent of the stigma. It also does not require the enrichment of photoreceptors in the region of the stigma.

"The integration of horizontally acquired photoreceptors into pre-existing cellular signalling could have been easy for both bacteriorhodopsin and light-activated adenylyl cyclase. Bacteriorhodopsin is an autonomous light-driven ion transporter, which immediately after its acquisition could provide meaningful signals to the previously blind organisms. This may have occurred several times independently. Similarly, PAC, the light-activated adenylyl cyclase of Euglena, is an autonomous sensor and signal transducer that could be directly integrated into cAMP signalling cascades."

The arguments laid out are simple and compelling. Everything you cite as "Fact" is false.

"Photopigments often came from bacterial food via horizontal gene transfer or from the chloroplast via endosymbiotic gene transfer"

If darwinist accept this, ramdom mutation is not the only evolution way. This horizontal gene transfer could be far more effective than ramdom mutation, and can explain the punctuation in the evolution, but if it is true we do not need a common ancestor anymore. Each genoma could be the result of ramdom horizontal gene transfer from the most different species.

Hitch claims: "Sorry but you utterly and rather lamely missed the entire point as well as its implications....Fact: There is NO documented evidence for the evolution of one type of eye into a different type of eye in any creature. Fact: Even a simple light sensitive spot is extremely complicated, involving a huge number of specialized proteins and protein systems."

I responded to your claims, you clown - and you claimed that eyespots exist on multicellular life. Don't start shifting the goalposts now. You did not make the point you claim I missed. Who knows what you would consider to be evidence anyway.

If you reread my post you will notice how I broke down the pathways to a simple starting point - at this basic level the pathways DO NOT require the interactions you claim. You can blather on about "all these singular things, eyespots, pigment rods etc., function together with all the other things and all for a clear purpose!" but it is all meaningless because YOU have assumed a starting point that is incorrect and needlessly complex.

You have also created an ultradarwinian caricature of evolution and then attacked it. I'd suggest reading some of the population genetics literature of the last 30 years if you'd like to be better informed of the theory you claim to understand and dismiss.

"Each genoma could be the result of ramdom horizontal gene transfer from the most different species."

While Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT) is rather easy to find, and to explain, in prokaryotes. It's much rarer (although not impossible) in eukaryotes because of the presence of a nucleus and the fact that the gametes are relatively protected.

As was pointed out at least a century ago -- “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.” (Hugo De Vries, Species and Varieties. Their Origin by Mutation, Chicago: Open Court. 1904, pp. 825–826. De Vries himself quoting with approval a reviewer of his Mutationstheoriesee this .PDF for the preceding reference)

In truth, that's merely a statement of Darwinistic wishful-thinking and dogma. Darwin's fanboys need it to be true that genetic damage can, and frequently does, result in novel functional genes and from them novel phenotypes.

As I've already pointed out, those of us without a prior commitment to "Darwinism" can afford to think critically about such quaint and primitive claims. On the other hand, "Darwinists" have no other options but to dogmatically assert and assert again that genetic damage frequently results in novel genotypes and phenotypes.

The word 'damage', I think, is misleading. It implies only destruction. This is erroneous.

When DNA copies itself, sometimes mistakes are made. Sometimes the wrong base is used. Sometimes bases or omitted or copied, or moved entirely in a 'cut and paste' fashion. All sorts of things can happen for all sorts of reasons, and this causes all sorts of things to be expressed in the resulting body. So it is a mistake to think of mutation as purely destructive.

"Darwin's fanboys need it to be true that genetic damage can, and frequently does, result in novel functional genes and from them novel phenotypes."

True, as far as it goes. And, just to be clear, you are stating it is IMPOSSIBLE for random mutation to give rise to novel genes? Is that right? And a single example of such a thing happening would satisfy you that you are wrong?

Ilion: "In truth, that's merely a statement of Darwinistic wishful-thinking and dogma. Darwin's fanboys need it to be true that genetic damage can, and frequently does, result in novel functional genes and from them novel phenotypes."How is it any less dogmatic to suggest what you do?

Even ID proponents agree that there is sufficient evidence for small scale adaptation that presumably results from mutation and selection.

Do you deny that this occurs at all? If you do not deny this, then in what way is it "quaint and primitive" to suggest that the same may be true over the long term with respect to duplicated genes?

Are you willing to assert that it's possible to run a magnet along a floppy disk on which has been copied a computer program executable and that the random magnetic fluctations will add functionality to the program?

"Are you willing to assert that it's possible to run a magnet along a floppy disk on which has been copied a computer program executable and that the random magnetic fluctations will add functionality to the program?"

I do not agree that the two are comparable.

But there is no need to work with analogies. Let's just stick to the point, shall we? Once again, will you step down and admit you are wrong if I can provide even a single example of random mutation producing a novel gene?

Do any of you poeple know one another personally or is this just one more internet Tower of Babel? Excepting Cornelius Hunter, I know not another soul holding forth here and see no reason why I ever should. Have a nice cozy "debate," a word that has no place in science.

Ilion vaguely rings a bell some where in the past, but surely Ilion knows that it is Dr. not Mr. Davison and has been since 1954. As for the role of the imagination in science, I cannot imagine a more flagrant departure from the real world than Darwin's Victorian, atheist inspired proposition known far and wide as "natural selection," an anti-evolutionary process which guarantees species stability, ensuring ultimate extincion, the clear testimony of the fossil record.

"The struggle for existence and natural selection ARE NOT progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, MAINTAIN THE STANDARD."

and

"Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of PRE-EXISTING rudiments."Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 406, my emphasis in caps.

I see another anonymous blowhard has surfaced on Cornelius Hunter's weblog. I am waiting for Ritchie Hollis to be muzzled before I will contribute further. If you want to join him in determining whether I remain here or not, that suits me fine. In am through dealing with arrogant snots like Ritchie Hollis, so consider yourself warned.

How Cornelius reacts to my stated conditions is of little consequence to me at this stage. I returned because asked me to, indicating that several people here were interested in my views. I did not return to absorb insults from anonymous arrogant adversaries like Ritchie and Ilion.

It is in Cornelius Hunter's hands how his weblog will be run. Is it to be another After The Bar Closes or Pharyngula or Uncommon Descent? We will soon see.

My analogy was too generous to "Darwinism," as biological information is far more complex than computorial information.

This is an insufficient criterion to make your comparison generous, Ilion. It is a meaningless comparison.

1) A magnet does not introduce random computer code to a program on a computer disc, it introduces meaningless interference. It would be the DNA equivalent of replacing nucleotides with random chemical compounds not with different bases.

2) A magnet will not introduce a single change that can be tested to see if it results in an operant program, it introduces vast change. This would be like taking a gene and replacing all bases with bases at random - even forgetting 1) above.

On both counts, this resembles natural processes not at all.

Mutation and selection works because single changes occur and the impact of those changes are evaluated by nature. Thus, even if only a small number of mutations have a positive effect, they can be promoted through population-genetic processes. Yes, that is standard Darwinian 'dogma' but it is also factual - and I do not say that lightly.

As I stated earlier, even within the ID movement, people generally accept that this occurs, while limiting it to fine-scale 'tuning' of the organism to the environment. To reject it outright is simply to ignore very basic, well established and frequently observed genetic population-genetic phenomena.

It would be a wonderful thing if, as jadavison says, this forum were to be civil. I take it from your response that you will not answer the question posed to you several times, and see little point in continuing a discussion with you.

Allelic mutation, Mendelian genetics and natural selection are all anti-evolutionary and can only generate subspecies and varieties. In short, there is absolutely nothing in the neo-Darwinian model that ever had anything whatsoever to do with phylogeny. All those three can ensure is ultimate extinction. It is the chromosome, not the gene, that WAS the instrument of ascending evolution. Richard B. Goldschmidt recognized this 70 years ago (1940) and it is as valid today as then.

Furthermore, there are several reasons to conclude that evolution (phylogeny) is no longer in progress and WAS like the development of the individual (ontogeny) has always been, a self-limiting phenomenon.

The death of the individual is the counterpart to the extinction of the species, the natural consequence of virtually every lineage that ever existed. Todays biota, in my opinion, is the climax of a planned sequence which ended approximately with the appearance of Homo sapiens probably less than 200,000 years ago. All we see today is rampant extinction without a single new Genus in two million years and not a verifiable new species in historical times.

Now I anticipate that this will set off the usual reaction of ridicule, denigration and insult that I have learned to expect from internet "forums," a word which rarely defines their activities. Nothing will surprise me anymore. So enjoy my heresies as I enjoy presenting them wherever I am still allowed.

"If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out."Oacar Wilde

You make the rules so I will respond in kind to those who insist on being crass, uninformed and nasty. While I am a late convert to Roman Catholicism, I have a strong streak of Old Testament which still dominates my persona. So we will see how it goes. Thanks for letting me know the ground rules here. Have you ever banished anyone? Just asking.

"I am an old campaigner and I love a good fight."Franklin Delano Roosevelt

jadavison, would you grant the possibility that, given the occasional and sporadic nature of divergence at the taxonomic levels above species, that there is insufficient evidence to definitively prove that 'evolution' has stopped?

The claim that mutation, selection and population-genetic processes are anti-evolutionary is obviously quite unusual. You don't appear to reject that micro-evolutionary adaptive processes occur within species (hence subspecies formation). It is unclear why, then, this is anti-evolutionary.

I assume you reject as examples the novel metabolic pathways that exist in several species of bacteria that degrade synthetic products such as nylon as being evidence of ongoing and functional mutation and selection.

I know of no "divergence above the species level." Both Robert Broom and Julian Huxley claimed that a new Genus had not appeared in the last two million years. What is odd is Julian Huxley was a devout selectionist Darwinian. Naturally the Darwinists pretend he, one of there own, never existed.

I am referring to the appearnce of new verifiable species of higher animals and plants. It is imnportant to distinguish between metabolic adaptation and evolution. Any phenomenon that is reversibel is not evolution which has never been reversible. Prokaryotes are remarkably adaptable to the presence of new substrates and metabolic inhibitors but that does not mean they have become new species. Resistance to insecticides disappears when the insecticides are no longer used. The same can be said for many drugs. Viruses are another matter of course and pose a serious threat to our existence. I hope this serves to clarify my comments.

Always the same thing. Darwiners never face up to simple facts, avoid the obvious, confuse speculation for evidence and have nothing but just-so stories based on other just-so stories, or tiny micro evol events to back up their humongous macro evol. claims.

Your response is poor indeed Rob:"Intermediates are preserved in the fossil record, can be inferred by phylogeny, and in the case of molecules, have even been resurrected and experimented on."

Obviously you don't even understand the point!Why do you ALWAYS presume Darwinism true then infer as though it were? That's exactly what you just did!

I said, "...and = begging the question"You say, "Good Presumption"

That doesn't even qualify as an answer just avoidance of a fact.

"Find something without a progenitor. I.E. something designed de novo."

Well gee Rob what is this suppose to be? Can you actually provide an argument that refers to the point in question?

Evidence + reason is precisely what every side of the debate thinks they are using so your point is moot.There is precious little reason in the Darwinian mindset.

When you say, 'evidence plus reason' - you of course mean, in the neo-Darwinian hypothesis context, "this skeleton looks like some of this other older one and like some of this younger one, therefore must be intermediate".

Another logical fallacy used by Darwiners all the time!

Again, every living thing is intermediate in your inane theory so how could a Darwinist ever NOT claim anything is intermediate?!!

This is not hard Rob - should I dumb it down more or what?

Then you imply the use of the forensic design inference technique which you implicitly deny by your own beliefs! Strange. Its valid for determining cause of death but not for bio origins.

I said, "..empirically speaking, is that like produces like ..."

So what do you point to? "Corn, Primrose, Drosophila, Rhagoletis"

Unbelievable! You went to TO and picked up a small list of their inane "proof" by extremely minor "speciation" or rather adaptation or variation within the kind.

This is not proof or even evidence of Darwinism by any means whatsoever since even the most staunch creationist knows mico evolution exists!Where is the evidence for anything like macro?

There is not a shred of it in existence and you know it, as does every other Darwinist.

There are precisely ZERO emprical experiments demonstrating that adaptational mechanisms in the genome, within a taxonomic family, can produce a different family all together. None.

The most complete experiments to date are probably Lenski's, but that is SO VERY FAR from anything remotely near macro evolution its amusing to hear you Darwiners blabbing away on it!

So then I get your refs concerning the alleged evolution of sight.

But I only need to remark the use of "could have" -as I have learned to expect- to see that what they're really saying is, "We don't know but this sounds good" - speculation passed as evidence, ad infinitum ad nauseum in Darween literature!

"The arguments laid out are simple and compelling."Only for the highly gullible like yourself who think conjecture and extrapolation constitute compelling arguments.

"Everything you cite as "Fact" is false." Go ahead, make my day. Prove it.I think you well know that everything I said is the simple truth.

You're a little suck that cannot take the truth and has no arguments and therefore shouts, "Ad hom!" in order to avoid presenting any realistic argument - a ubiquitous tactic among those of your ludicrous persuasions.

"I think I've told you before, Ritchie, I do not answer to your agenda or to your quaint assumptions.

We both know that any "death blow" you imagine you have is highly dependent upon your tired old "Darwinistic" assumptions and on the over-all ignorance of Science! on the particular matter."

What a cowardly reply.

You were the one you said: "Darwin's fanboys need it to be true that genetic damage can, and frequently does, result in novel functional genes and from them novel phenotypes." A bold statement. But apparently you will not stand by it. My challenge came from nothing but logical extrapolation.

You show your lack of confidence in the accuracy of your position by your reluctance to put it to the test.

Now, remind me, between science and faith, which is the one which repeatedly puts itself to the test, and which does its level best to avoid being tested?

My insistence that natural selection is anti-evolutionary is not unusual at all and isn't even original with me. Neither is my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Others have proposed the same notions. One such was Leo Berg, in my estimation one of the greatest evolutionists of all time.

"The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard.... Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments."Nomogenesis, page 406

Others, notably William Bateson and Reginald C. Punnett had made similar claims even before Berg. Unfortunately (for them), the Darwinians still pretend that their several critics never existed. Their posture is a scandal which I greatly enjoy exposing here and elsewhere.

"No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men."Thomas Carlyle

I recommend my several essays which bear on many of the matters being discussed here. They are available on the Essays button on my home page. I will be happy to answer any questions they may evoke. I especially recommend "What's Wrong With Darwinism."

Ilion, whoever that is, finds me boring but is afraid to mention my name. Come on Ilion, don't be shy. Establish yourself as my adversary. I collect enemies and publish their evaluations for all to see.

"Enemies are so stimulating."Katherine Hepburn

"If you want to make eneemies, try to change something."Woodrow Wilson

"He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really IS an idiot."Groucho Marx, my emphasis.

I would quote you in my long list of adversaries but since I have no idea who you are, you don't qualify. However let the record indicate that Ilion, whoever he is, continues, as he always has, to dismiss John A. Davison as of no consequence. While Ilion holds forth here, there are some blogs at which he is no longer welcome due to his chronic, crass behavior.

"Well, no. I simply stated that you will (as "Darwinists" alway do) present some question-begging and/or special-pleading and expect that I will be impressed."

If that were truly the case, why did you not take me up on my challenge? You would have nothing to lose.

You are simply trying to backtrack because you have backed yourself into a corner. Which is fine. But don't assert there is no evidence for random mutation when the truth is that you evidently just don't want to hear it.

The core commitment of 'modern evolutionary theory' -- the one point upon which it cannot ever compromise -- is that all "evolution" (*) is random, that there is no reasoned cause to "evolution," that there is no telos to "evolution."

Furthermore, your objection to what Mr Davison said reflects the all-too-common habit of 'modern evolutionary theorists' to argue from ignorance, and to assume their "conclusions."

(*) the quote marks around the word 'evolution' are because Darwinists have always misused and misappropriated the word; it actually means something quite different from what Darwinists insist it does.

I not only believe that there WAS a "telos" to evolution, namely the appearance of a rational being, I believe that the process is now complete with the contemporary biota. I believe speciation is at a standstill as is the formation of any of the higher taxonomic categories. There is nothing in the neo-Darwinian scheme that ever had anything to do with the history of life on this planet. Natural and artificial selection, sexual reproduction, Mendelian and population genetics, these are all incompetent to produce new life forms. They can only generate intra-speciic variations doomed to ultimate extinction. They ensure that extinction as the fossil record has testified time and again. Without extinction there could never have been evolution, a phenomenon now complete.

The perfect model for phylogeny is ontogeny, the development of the individual. Just as the transition from the egg to the adult is governed entirely by information already present in the egg, so, I have proposed, was the same true for the earliest life forms which must have contained all the necessary information for all of evolution. We have no idea how many such primary life forms were involved. Leo Berg postulated tens of thosuands as I have indicated. For all we really know he was correct.

Of course this concept is anathema to the traditional Darwinian who believes he has already discovered the mechanism for phylogenesis and now looks no further for answers. Everywhere the Darwinian looks he sees evolution in action when in fact all he may be observing is adaptation within the narrow confines of fundamentally immutable and terminal species.

If there are still life forms capable of progressive change, I am certain that they will never achieve that goal through the devices the Darwinians have proposed. Darwin's Victorian fantasy, like each and every one of Richard Dawkins' recent fantasies, had absolutely NOTHING to do with the great mystery of organic evolution. Phylogeny HAD to have been guided somehow. How that was done must now become a primary goal of evolutionary science.

Charles: "I don't understand the critic you made about my post. Does it mean that you think there are no mutation that can confer protective effect against disease?"

Charles, my critique is about your reasoning; specifically. that you are engaging in illogic, which is irrational.

"Darwinists" like to assert "facts," and question-beg "conclusions" -- all the while insisting that no one may look into the issue of their illogical and irrational resoning. I decline to be distracted: until "Darwinists" are willing to consistently *reason* the only issue before us is their anti-reason.

Your "translation" is nothing of the sort. Your "logic" is nonexistent. My comment had to do with "expectations" and nothing more. The major defect in Darwin's fantasy was its "reasonableness" which collapsed immediately when tested empirically. Besides, "logic" has no place in science, never did have, and never will have. I can't think of a single application for logic in the advancement of science. Neither can anyone else!

I'm astonished at the level of dumb arguments here. The author of the blog accuses people of straw man argument even when he attacks a fake and non-existing evolutionary theory!!! Really scary is the number of morons supporting him...